Christ's Church is Invisible

[look3467]

I heard there were some more coming. Oh! They already came. Did you blink? Don’t blink!>>>Ani

I don’t make jokes on things of God, I take my God seriously. Thank you.

You have a way. Have you put your way above Jesus’s way? Looks like you have already missed two Christian commandments to say nothing of the commandments which Jesus came to fulfill.>>>Ani

There is but one way Ani, whether we believe it or not, doesn’t matter, because Jesus came to save what was lost, and that included you an I.

And of course looks the other way when ill happens because it might not feel good to feel the pull of conscience. >>>Ani

Oh, I see, now you’re thinking that I am totally passive because of the word love.

What you are not seeing is the part that Jesus came to change, that is where love is applied.

And of course has no need for Truth because it might offend and that might embarrass us or compromise our relations with lesser persons than Jesus.>>>Ani

No need for truth because…of a perceived passive attitude?

So then stating the truth means war? Is that not what happened during the reformation?

Jesus said that he was coming with a sword. What does that mean, I wonder?>>>Ani

To divide between the flesh and the spirit; Meaning that God can only be accessed by spirit and not by works of the flesh.

Jesus said “If you love me, then follow my Commandments.” Those are His terms. Are His terms not OK with you? God bless you with that one!>>>Ani

What are His commandments that you think I should follow? And if I don’t follow them as you think, what then is your judgment of me?

Now let me ask you a question: Apart from the church, am I condemned?

Peace>>>AJ:heart:

 

[SyCarl]

Jesus said “If you love me, then follow my Commandments.” Those are His terms. Are His terms not OK with you? God bless you with that one!

Jesus also said:

"He does not thank the slave because he did the things which were commanded, does he? “So you too, when you do all the things which are commanded you, say, ‘We are unworthy slaves; we have done only that which we ought to have done.’”
(Luke 17:9-10)

We should not expect a reward for what we do since we already owe God all we can do.

 

[abelville]

Lets remember we are all brothers and sisters in Christ here!!!

If non-believers were to read some of this, I’d feel we let them down.

God be with us!!!

Al

 

[rwoehmke]

It was those in secular power who burned heretics. They took advantage of the convictions to grab land. The purpose of the Church was to save souls. The purpose of those in secular power was to grab land.

I would venture to say that the great land grab could be assigned to grabbing and keeping’ the Papal States as any other piece of geography. The fact is that as the reformation took place one either followed the religion of the region or his life was in danger and often forfeit. To ascribe all other burnings than those allowed by the Church to a mere land grab is a gross error. That is not to say that wealth and land did not enter into many condemnations of individuals and groups. The Church may be perfect, but those men in charge have with rare exceptions not been totally impeccable.

 

[MJ_1964]

Jesus is referring to Heaven. Keep in mind that most of the Jews at the time expected the Messiah to be a warrior king much like David. Jesus is telling his followers that this is not who he is. For your friend to try and use this verse against the Catholic Church. He would have to imply that we believe this verse to mean an earthy kingdom. (Which we don’t) and at the same time imply that Rome would be the kingdom, since earthy kingdoms are based on land ownership. While I am a Catholic and a subject of the Pope I am not a citizen of Rome, does this mean that I do not belong to the kingdom? It makes no sense. The Kingdom is heaven and Christ dwells within the heavenly realm. We are the body of Christ and since we dwell within the Church, the Church can rightly be called the Kingdom of God, for that is where his people dwells and that is how he leads us. For your friend to consider himself a member of “the church” and still imply that the Catholic Church is wrong is a contradiction, if he would step back from his bias beliefs and look at the verse he would have to come up with the same conclusion that we Catholics do. He may not agree that the Catholic Church is the body of Christ but he does have to recognize that there is a body, and for him to be in Christ he has to be a part of that body.
We will keep him in our prayers, for if he does come to see the light it will be by the grace of God and not of our arguments.
May God keep him close to his heart.

 

[johnstown_johnn]

“Thou art Peter and upon this Rock I build My Church.”

 

[SusannaFe]

Christcnection1 asked about Jesus saying that His “kingdom is not of this world”.

First, Jesus’ (God’s) kingdom is not just the Church. His kingdom includes angels and heaven. If He had said His Church is not of this world, that would be a different emphasis.

Second, I have found that Christian denominations need to spiritualize Church otherwise they have trouble with the verse in the last post: " …and the gates of hell will not prevail against it" is the continuation of that verse. In order to validate their denomination they must believe that the gates of hell DID prevail against the original Church that Christ started, the only Church for hundreds of years, a very visible Church. If they can’t invalidate it, they can’t justify their Christianity apart from the Catholic Church.

Third, I lived with the Mennonites for a while, right between Bethlehem and Harrisburg PA where Christcnection1 is and I don’t remember them claiming that the Church was invisible. I realize there is more than one Mennonite denomination in that area, but are you speaking with just one individual, or are you addressing the ministers of the congregation? There is everything from horse and buggy Mennonite to the Charity Churches there, but again, a formal doctrine of an invisible Church doesn’t ring a bell. Has this person been raised Mennonite, or is he considered a seeker?

 

[SusannaFe]

Another comment: When discussing scripture it’s good to keep in mind that many denominations believe that scripture is the truth, the whole**** truth and nothing but the truth. One passage that is difficult for them to explain is 1 Timothy 3:15:

But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.(KJV)

(I quoted the KJV here because it is a version usually accepted by the Mennonites.)

The verse states that the Church**** is the pillar and ground of the truth, not the Bible. This verse is rather unsettling for those who believe that the Bible is the only authority.

 

[Stewart42]

Many people think that the phrase in John 18:36 has Jesus proclaiming some kind of Gnostic concept of his kingdom. This, however, is not the case. The English translation lends itself to misinterpretation. The Greek is ek tou kosmou toutou, which can and should be translated as “from this world.” His kingdom is not from this world. It is, however, as N.T. Wright points out, for this world.

 

[TOME]

The Church is not “Invisible”.

As I have been following the various post here I cannot stop thinking that the question itself belies a misunderstanding of the nature of the Church herself.

How can the Church be invisible given the sacramental nature of the Church. All sacraments, by nature, are visible signs of God’s presence and love. Granted, the Church - “The Body of Christ” as St Paul teaches - is intrinsically united with Christ Jesus thus shares in the mystery of the Incarnation. Naturally, the is the “Invisible” innate to the Church’s existence, but again I have to stress the sacramental nature of the Church which has to understood as very visible.

I have read post concerning the Church and the Kingdom. Some of these post remind me what Christ told Pilate that his kingdom is not of this world. However, when Christ expressed this reality he was not saying that his kingdom was not present in or to this world.

Our Holy Father, in many of his writings on the Church, points out that one of the great insights of modern scriptural scholarship has been its understanding of the Kingdom of God as taught by Christ especially through his parables. Christ taught the proper understanding of the Kingdom is God’s loving and active presence in this world here and now. The kingdom of God (Heaven) is an existential reality, a reality that all His followers must first be aware of and secondly respond to the presence of this reality through our lives of love. To equate the kingdom of God (Heaven) as being something we only experience at death is to miss or misunderstand what Christ taught. And even more, to equate the Kingdom with a temporal kingdom such as the Papal States were is to miss the point all together.

The Church is most Church when, as the “Body of Christ” we celebrate the Eucharist. The Liturgy, by nature, is public worship -something very visible.

Another aspect of the Church is that she is heirarchical, humans organized in a very visible structure. Again from St. Paul, we know that structure exist but for service. Still it is there in a very visible form.

One other point about the Church and the Kingdom. I take this from a theological development which came during and after Vatican II and one of the leading proponents of this theological understanding was (is) our Holy Father. This is the understanding that the Kingdom of Heaven (God) subsist in the Church but is not the Church itself. My thoughts and understanding on this is to compare the Church to being a mother. The child developing in her womb subsist and is dependant upon her but is an independant being who in God’s good time will become present to the world. The time of birth, naturally speaking, is not the mother’s choice, rather she is to nourish and sustain the life within her until the time God chooses for the child to be born and for the kingdom to be made present, in it fullness, to and in the world.

 

[Stewart42]

Tome said: “As I have been following the various post here I cannot stop thinking that the question itself belies a misunderstanding of the nature of the Church herself.”

What many of you are encountering is a false notion of the visible/invisible church distinction. I can say from experience that most Protestants get it wrong and explain it poorly.

As a Presbyterian, I can definitely say we believe in one church. This Church, however, has visible and invisible attributes. There are hypocrites in the church. Not all Israel is of Israel. The church is a field with both wheat and tares.

Any protestant that says the “invisible church” is the “real church” is getting it wrong. The historic reformed faith (for the most part) has never viewed it in this fashion. I would say that the false understanding of the invisible church on the part of many Protestants today is due to a neo-Gnostic tendency in theology today.

Oh, and I agree with you that the church is visible given its sacramental nature. Good stuff. A lot of Protestants miss that point. Good stuff.

 

[jacobaer]

Ephesians 4:11-16

“It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, to prepare God’s people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ. Then we will no longer be infants, tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming. Instead, speaking the truth in love, we will in all things grow up into him who is the Head, that is, Christ. From him the whole body, joined and held together by every supporting ligament, grows and builds itself up in love, as each part does its work.”

You must speak to your Mennonite friend, and to any evangelical Protestant in terms of Scripture or they will not accept the answer. This passage from Ephesians pretty much puts the kibosh on the “invisible church” error.

If the church is “invisible,” where did the early believers go to find these apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers? Are they “invisible” too?

Here’s another passage, this one from I Corinthians 11

1 Corinthians 11:17-22

“In the following directives I have no praise for you, for your meetings do more harm than good. In the first place, I hear that when you come together as a church, there are divisions among you, and to some extent I believe it. No doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God’s approval. When you come together, it is not the Lord’s Supper you eat, for as you eat, each of you goes ahead without waiting for anybody else. One remains hungry, another gets drunk. Don’t you have homes to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you for this? Certainly not!”

“When you come together as a church” does not sound like an “invisible” church. Where would they know to meet if the church is “invisible”?

Peace,
Gene

 

[Stewart42]

Gene,

Do you believe the Church contains false professors? Do you believe that the church at the end of history will look like the church we see today?

 

[johnstown_johnn]

The Church is not “Invisible”.

As I have been following the various post here I cannot stop thinking that the question itself belies a misunderstanding of the nature of the Church herself.

How can the Church be invisible given the sacramental nature of the Church. All sacraments, by nature, are visible signs of God’s presence and love. Granted, the Church - “The Body of Christ” as St Paul teaches - is intrinsically united with Christ Jesus thus shares in the mystery of the Incarnation. Naturally, the is the “Invisible” innate to the Church’s existence, but again I have to stress the sacramental nature of the Church which has to understood as very visible.

I have read post concerning the Church and the Kingdom. Some of these post remind me what Christ told Pilate that his kingdom is not of this world. However, when Christ expressed this reality he was not saying that his kingdom was not present in or to this world.

Our Holy Father, in many of his writings on the Church, points out that one of the great insights of modern scriptural scholarship has been its understanding of the Kingdom of God as taught by Christ especially through his parables. Christ taught the proper understanding of the Kingdom is God’s loving and active presence in this world here and now. The kingdom of God (Heaven) is an existential reality, a reality that all His followers must first be aware of and secondly respond to the presence of this reality through our lives of love. To equate the kingdom of God (Heaven) as being something we only experience at death is to miss or misunderstand what Christ taught. And even more, to equate the Kingdom with a temporal kingdom such as the Papal States were is to miss the point all together.

The Church is most Church when, as the “Body of Christ” we celebrate the Eucharist. The Liturgy, by nature, is public worship -something very visible.

Another aspect of the Church is that she is heirarchical, humans organized in a very visible structure. Again from St. Paul, we know that structure exist but for service. Still it is there in a very visible form.

One other point about the Church and the Kingdom. I take this from a theological development which came during and after Vatican II and one of the leading proponents of this theological understanding was (is) our Holy Father. This is the understanding that the Kingdom of Heaven (God) subsist in the Church but is not the Church itself. My thoughts and understanding on this is to compare the Church to being a mother. The child developing in her womb subsist and is dependant upon her but is an independant being who in God’s good time will become present to the world. The time of birth, naturally speaking, is not the mother’s choice, rather she is to nourish and sustain the life within her until the time God chooses for the child to be born and for the kingdom to be made present, in it fullness, to and in the world.

Tome, your post says it all. ERxcellent!

 

[Stewart42]

All he refuted was a straw-man. If someone would not mind, I’d like to hear a Catholic restate exactly what the think the doctrine of the Protestant doctrine of the invisible church is.

 

[jmcrae]

Do you believe the Church contains false professors?

We know who the “false professors” are because the visible Catholic Church excommunicates them, either formally or latae sentiae.

It is not so difficult to discern who is speaking with the voice of the Church, and who is promulgating his or her own personal opinions. (Even seekers in RCIA can instinctively tell which of their catechists are faithful to the Magesterium, and which ones are not.)

Do you believe that the church at the end of history will look like the church we see today?

It will have the same characteristics. It will of course be larger, and it will understand more of its doctrine than it does today, but when we all rise from the dead, none of us will have any difficulty sorting the Catholic Church from the rest of them. But the Church described by St. Justin Martyr in the late 100s AD is a dead ringer for today’s Catholic Church - not much has changed at all. (I think we take up the collection at a different point in the Mass than they did in his time - and we typically don’t go to Confession right before Mass, as they did in his day - usually, we go the day before, although many priests are actually restoring the practice of offering the Sacrament of Reconciliation directly before Mass, again.)

Most of today’s Protestant denominations, by contrast, would be unrecognizable to their founders even today. One wonders, for example, what United Church of Canada founder George Pidgeon would make of today’s United Church of Canada - and what John Knox would make of today’s Presbyterian churches, which seem to have disowned him, or are at least very embarrassed by him.

 

[Stewart42]

The following is from the Westminster Confession of Faith, a represents an more accurate view of the the visible/invisible church distinction. It doesn’t posit two separate churches. It doesn’t say the invisible church is the “real” church. The doctrine that has been thrown around on this thread is a caricature of the actual doctrine.

CHAP. XXV. - Of the Church.

1. The catholic or universal Church, which is invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ the Head thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fullness of Him that filleth all in all.
2. The visible Church, which is also catholic or universal under the Gospel (not confined to one nation, as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion; and of their children: and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation.
3. Unto this catholic visible Church Christ hath given the ministry, oracles, and ordinances of God, for the gathering and perfecting of the saints, in this life, to the end of the world: and doth, by His own presence and Spirit, according to His promise, make them effectual thereunto.
4. This catholic Church hath been sometimes more, sometimes less visible. And particular Churches, which are members thereof, are more or less pure, according as the doctrine of the Gospel is taught and embraced, ordinances administered, and public worship performed more or less purely in them.
5. The purest Churches under heaven are subject both to mixture and error; and some have so degenerated as to become no Churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan. Nevertheless, there shall be always a Church on earth to worship God according to His will.
6. There is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ. Nor can the Pope of Rome, in any sense, be head thereof.

 

[Stewart42]

We know who the “false professors” are because the visible Catholic Church excommunicates them, either formally or latae sentiae.

It is not so difficult to discern who is speaking with the voice of the Church, and who is promulgating his or her own personal opinions. (Even seekers in RCIA can instinctively tell which of their catechists are faithful to the Magesterium, and which ones are not.)

I think may you miss my point. How can they excommunicate them if they don’t know who they are? It is possible for some one to live lie their whole life and not believe in Christ, to seem to be a believer. Do you believe that there are fakers in the church today that will not be in heaven? And if so, how do they relate to the Church?

 

[Stewart42]

But the Church described by St. Justin Martyr in the late 100s AD is a dead ringer for today’s Catholic Church - not much has changed at all. (I think we take up the collection at a different point in the Mass than they did in his time - and we typically don’t go to Confession right before Mass, as they did in his day - usually, we go the day before, although many priests are actually restoring the practice of offering the Sacrament of Reconciliation directly before Mass, again.)

I know the Justin Martyr quote you have in mind, and it looks like my protestant worship service. There is no mention of a mass in that passage. Your reading that into the text.

 

[jmcrae]

I think may you miss my point. How can they excommunicate them if they don’t know who they are?

By latae sentiae. Certain acts, by their very nature (abortion, artificial birth control, receiving the Eucharist in an unworthy manner), cut us off from the Church. It is not necessary for the Bishop to make a formal declaration or even to know who the person is.

It is possible for some one to live lie their whole life and not believe in Christ, to seem to be a believer.

If they seem to themselves to be a believer, then they are doing their very best - the Church does not require that every member be a theologian. As long as they are not consciously promulgating heresy, and as long as they remain open to be corrected and to change their beliefs to fit what the Church teaches when they find out about their errors, they’re fine. We all must take the attitude that “I believe whatever Christ’s Church teaches me, because I know that Christ in His Church cannot lie to me, nor teach me anything that is false.”

The rest of us have a duty to make sure that the tools for educating oneself about the true nature and person of Jesus are readily available in easy-to-understand language.

Do you believe that there are fakers in the church today that will not be in heaven?

Certainly there are people who are heretics - both openly and in secret, and who are fully aware that their personal opinions don’t line up with Church teaching.

And if so, how do they relate to the Church?

They are excommunicated. They have to make a sincere confession of all their sins to a priest, and be formally restored to the Church, before they can begin to participate worthily in the Sacraments again.